What Should We Teach The Next Generation?

zagubov

TruckerT wrote: »

I was just loving the language!

But then I got to the God bit

We need to teach the next generation that it is not reasonable to use use one's intelligence in order to rip off those who are less clever

TruckerT

The God bit could be negotiable depending on the child's religious beliefs (or lack of it). For cultural reasons a certain amount of sacred text teaching may be useful from at least say a literature point of view. Moral teaching? where to begin?

I also believe students hould be taught enough science to understand the GM debate, global warming and other issues which impact on our survivability as a species.

Glad you noticed the quality of writing- it's almost like poetry compared with modern writing!:)

Callie22 wrote: »

The most important thing that children need to know is HOW to learn. I'd say in my case, most of what I *need* know to function on a daily basis I'd learnt by the end of primary school - by that I mean reading, writing, arithmetic. I hated secondary school with a passion and I honestly don't believe that I learnt anything of use from the age of 11 to 18. The only reason that I passed my GCSEs and A-Levels was because I loved to learn (despite my teachers best efforts to the contrary) and I loved to read. In every situation I've found myself in since then, it's been the ability to learn how to do something that's seen me through - teaching myself how to study and write an essay properly got me a first at uni, teaching myself how a computer program worked (and teaching myself how to communicate that to others) got me a permanent job. So they're the skills I think we should focus on, because if there's one thing that people in the future are going to need, it's the skills to constantly adapt.

More broadly, I think that schools should teach a full curriculum up to the age of 18 - I don't think that allowing young people to specialise so much at 16 is helpful. People's choices educationally get restricted so much by a (possibly ill-informed) choice they make at 16 whereby they limit themselves to three or four subjects, usually in one main subject area (arts OR sciences, generally). If everyone learnt 'everything' up to 18 then people would be able to be much more flexible in terms of what they'd be able to go on to do, and it'd be easier to change direction later on.

Lot of good sense here; learning how to revise, enjoying reading, and learning that it's important to make an effort.
Scotland and Ireland both believe in general education. France and Germany make you mix subjects. In fact the more I look around the less happy I am to see young people specialising early.

Joe_Bloggs wrote: »

pqrdef said:-

Can this be illustrated by a Venn diagram ?
J_B.

Glad to see someone knows what that is!
Shouldn't everybody?
This one summarises a huge amount of information about Europe.

chewmylegoff

there are two main problems with the education system as i see it:

(i) it attempts to push square pegs into round holes. there are huge numbers of people who are not academic and are highly unlikely to benefit from a prescriptive classroom education. they should be taught to read, write and count, but at a fairly early stage they should be given the opportunity to benefit from vocational learning. this is not "writing thickies off" it is recognising that you have X number of hours in which to educate them and you might as well spend X as efficiently as possible teaching them things which are likely to be of benefit to them, rather than trying to make someone with no aptitude for languages learn french.

(ii) if going down the university route, you are forced to choose what you want to study at university when you are 15/16, as in the majority of cases you need to do specific a-levels to get on your university course. you should be able to choose what your degree is going to be in once you've been at uni for a year like you can in other countries.

zagubov

It's a weird thing, but one of the few plusses of the communist system was that it was so non-consumerist that people actually went to evening classes and night school for fun and to socialise.

Education was subsidised (and I think everyone admits their telly was dull).

Albania ended up with thirteen symphony orchestras.

Everybody (in some countires) teaching/researching in physiology had to undergo medical training too. You were taught trade as well as a degree.

A friend knew someone in east Germany who had a medical degree but was also trained in hairdressing. Polish plumbers are now legendary in the UK.

We'd probably argue those countires over-educated their people. They might well argue any unemployment's the government's fault, as they're all fit to work and trained up to do it.

To top it all, some people have the gall to moan when such people come here and try to contribute their skills and knowledge to our economy.

Sapphire

zagubov wrote: »

It's a weird thing, but one of the few plusses of the communist system was that it was so non-consumerist that people actually went to evening classes and night school for fun and to socialise.

Education was subsisided (and I think evryone admits their telly was dull).

Albania ended up with thirteen symphony orcheestras.

Everybody (in some countires) teaching/researching in physiology had to undergo medical training too. You were taught trade as well as a degree.

A friend knew someone in east Germany who had a medical degree but was also trained in hairdressing. Polish plumbers are now legendary in the UK.

We'd probably argue those countires over-educated their people. They might well argue any unemployment's the government's fault, as they're all fit to work and trained up to do it.

To top it all, some people have the gall to moan when such people come here and try to contribute their skills and knowledge to our economy.

Yes, apart from history (with its propaganda), the education system in former Soviet-communist countries was superb. It's the only thing that communism had going for it as far as I'm concerned.

Even workers and peasants were comparatively well educated.

I'm going by the example of Poland, the only country in the former Bloc that I know about.

TruckerT

zagubov wrote: »

We'd probably argue those countires over-educated their people. They might well argue any unemployment's the government's fault, as they're all fit to work and trained up to do it.

To top it all, some people have the gall to moan when such people come here and try to contribute their skills and knowledge to our economy.

Capitalism is a very good system, infinitely better than communism, that's why Eastern Europeans feel so lucky these days

But even capitalism has a sell-by date, and it is rapidly approaching - that's why the banks no longer care

TruckerT

pqrdef

chewmylegoff wrote: »

this is not "writing thickies off" it is recognising that you have X number of hours in which to educate them and you might as well spend X as efficiently as possible teaching them things which are likely to be of benefit to them

But why should some people be obliged to study something utilitarian while others are allowed to waste their time studying English Lit or some such which will never be any use to them at all?

chewmylegoff

pqrdef wrote: »

But why should some people be obliged to study something utilitarian while others are allowed to waste their time studying English Lit or some such which will never be any use to them at all?

no-one should be obliged to do anything, but they should be given the opportunity to do something vocational if they want to.

pqrdef

chewmylegoff wrote: »

no-one should be obliged to do anything, but they should be given the opportunity to do something vocational if they want to.

But why vocational? Why not art history or film studies? These things are available as degree subjects, but they don't seem to depend on any particular facility in grammar or arithmetic.

And why only them? Why would vocational subjects not be a serious and credible option for everybody?

We can't seem to get away from the idea that the academic route is the main line and anything else is a side track.

Actually, the academic route would be the raw deal if we didn't make sure that everything else was worse.

TruckerT

pqrdef wrote: »

We can't seem to get away from the idea that the academic route is the main line and anything else is a side track

The main line to what? Profit?

TruckerT

Callie22

pqrdef wrote: »

But why should some people be obliged to study something utilitarian while others are allowed to waste their time studying English Lit or some such which will never be any use to them at all?

'English lit' per se may not be useful to many people, but again it's about the skills you learn whilst studying it. Analysis of text, developing an idea, constructing an argument and communicating that effectively - they're all very useful things to know, and worthwhile transferable skills. I agree that the way it's taught in a lot of schools is awful and the range of texts used is boringly narrow, but when it's done right it's a great subject to study (and no I don't have a degree in it ) It goes back to my earlier point, that pretty much everything taught at secondary level is 'useless' in itself, so schools should focus more on the skills developed when studying a particular subject.

And to go back to an earlier post, I disagree that people would get 'burnt out' studying a full curriculum. It works well in lots of other countries, and it can work well here - just look at things like the International Baccalaureate. I agree that 'teaching to test' is a problem, but that's why we need to look at the way things are taught. Just memorising stuff by rote is not learning. That kind of teaching is why so many young people fall down when they get to uni, because you don't (well you shouldn't!) get your hand held. It's also doing young people a huge disservice, because as I said people are going to have to become more adaptable and it's not inconceivable that people in the future may have two or even three 'careers' over a lifetime, and that will involve learning lots of new things. If you don't know how to do that effectively then you're going to struggle.